EOSHD

Welcome to the EOSHD forum. The knowledge-base for all mirrorless, DSLR and pro video cameras.

Subforums

  1. ANAMORPHIC

    The largest online community devoted to anamorphic filmmaking.
    Discuss lenses, adapters, workflows and post lenses for sale

    14,765
    posts
  2. BLACKMAGIC CINEMA CAMERAS

    Raw shooting cameras - URSA Mini 4.6K, BMCC, BMPCC and more

    2,439
    posts
  3. SHOOTING

    Screening room and the creative side of filmmaking - share your ideas / stories

    2,671
    posts
  4. SAMSUNG NX1 / NX500 HACK

    Discuss the NX1 hack and more. Share your mods. Share your tests.

    3,380
    posts
  5. GEAR FOR SALE

    Post classified ads for your camera gear and filmmaking related kit!

    1,078
    posts

7,228 topics in this forum

    • 10 replies
    • 212 views
    • 59 replies
    • 4,640 views
    • 2 replies
    • 105 views
    • 9 replies
    • 124 views
    • 3 replies
    • 153 views
    • 9 replies
    • 300 views
    • 0 replies
    • 85 views
    • 27 replies
    • 592 views
    • 20 replies
    • 1,246 views
    • 65 replies
    • 2,366 views
    • 9 replies
    • 280 views
    • 3 replies
    • 358 views
    • 38 replies
    • 1,938 views
    • 12 replies
    • 346 views
    • 0 replies
    • 160 views
    • 310 replies
    • 54,447 views
    • 29 replies
    • 663 views
    • 3 replies
    • 187 views
    • 5 replies
    • 286 views
    • 9 replies
    • 454 views
    • 22 replies
    • 708 views
    • 9 replies
    • 241 views
    • 0 replies
    • 150 views
    • 12 replies
    • 1,089 views
    • 10 replies
    • 390 views
EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras
EOSHD Pro Color for Panasonic cameras

  • Popular Contributors

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      10,797
    • Total Posts
      157,873
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      24,753
    • Most Online
      3,616

    Newest Member
    jks
    Joined
  • Posts

    • Camera advice. Best image, ignore rest. $3000
      I agree with Don, not only that, now they are doing video getting our jobs! And failing miserably to do so, can't focus manualy, don't understand most of the settings. There are so many women doing wedding video right now that is unbelievable! I help some friends during a Christening during the summer, and I took the girls A7ii and the settings were all over the place (and the menus of Sony, but that is another story). I mean, common, it is your camera, read a manual or google a bit. These people are getting -through facebook- a lot of jobs and money.
    • My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"
      Again, nobody has yet done a conclusive, worthwhile "equivalence" test.   I don't mean to sound harsh (nor to hijack this thread), but the pages you linked either lack actual equivalence tests or give dubious, useless results.   The first page linked doesn't seem to contain any equivalence test -- it is just an essay titled "Sensor Crop Factors and Equivalence."  If there is an actual test of DOF equivalence on that page, please point it out.   The second page you linked actually contains a DOF equivalence test that seems to demonstrate that optics for larger sensors yield  quite a significant difference in DOF when compared to the DOF of to smaller optic.  So, it seems to demonstrate that the equivalence principle fails.  I spotted the differences immediately, and I will point to some of the more obvious discrepancies.  Here are the two images flashed back-to-back in a gif file: The bottle in the foreground stays sharp in both images, but look at how the sharpness of the bush and car dramatically change (red circle).  Look at how the sharpness of the cast shadow and grass change (yellow circle).  Look at how the sharpness of the building changes (blue circle).   Does the DOF in these two flashing images seem equivalent?  It doesn't seem the same to me.   Now, I am not very good at making gif images, and I apologize for the rough dithering, but you can further confirm these differences yourself by downloading the two images from the linked site and switching back and forth between them in your favorite image viewer.  Actually, anyone should be able to see the difference inside the red circle, merely by viewing the two images on their web site.   On the other hand, I have to confess that this test is worthless.  In the first place, it appears that the tester failed to eliminate the variable of in-camera sharpening, so it is very possible that one camera sharpened its entire image while the other camera didn't.  More importantly, the tester put a lot of air between the foreground and the distant background.  Some of the "magic" of larger format optics happens in that air between the FG and BG, but this comparison has no objects nor charts in that air to reveal what is happening to the focus there.  This fatal blunder occurs in almost every equivalence test that I see.   The third link that you gave is the Brightland Studios test which has been referenced by me and others on this forum in several threads.  I am afraid that this is yet another misguided experiment in which the equivalence principle doesn't seem to hold up.   The tester made two comparisons using the same camera and zoom lens in both tests.  First he compared the equivalence between camera's full sensor read-out and the camera's crop mode: With the front of the subject sharp in both images, the apparent counter top (red circle) in the distant background,changes focus, and does not appear to be equivalent in the two images.  Likewise, there is another detail in the distant background (blue circle) lacking equivalence of focus between the two test images.  There seems to be other subtle focus discrepancies, that I will mention later.   The tester acknowledged that the camera might apply a different degree of image processing/sharpening in full sensor mode than it would in crop mode, which could make the focus/DOF of the two test images seem more similar.  So, he made another comparison, in which he shot both images in full sensor mode, but one of the images was shot optically as if it was in crop mode.  That "simulated crop mode" photo was then cropped to matching size in post. Thus, in this second comparison, there was optical equivalence along with no difference in image processing/sharpening between the two shots: As you can see, with the difference in in-camera processing eliminated, there are significant areas of non-equivalence. In addition to the counter top changing, the bokeh changes size and softness (red circle), while the front of the subject remains sharp.  The Canon logos conspicuously change their focus (blue circles) which happened more subtly in the first comparison, while the top buttons on the camera (yellow circle) do likewise.  Part of the tripod head (green circle) also conspicuously goes in and out of focus, and it does so more subtly in the first comparison.   So, the equivalence principle certainly seems to fail here, as well.   However, there are serious problems with this test.  For one thing he used the same zoom lens on all images.  Not only does the character of the lens look the same in each photo, but aperture position (virtual/actual) doesn't necessarily change with the zoom's set focal length.  So the zoom lens' aperture position probably doesn't match the differing aperture positions found on a prime lenses of the same focal length.  This discrepancy could make the DOF appear more uniform than if the test were done with separate prime lenses of different focal lengths.   Also, these Brightland Studios tests suffer from the same lack of any objects/charts in the important long stretch between the foreground subject and the distant background, so there is literally "nothing to see here."   The fourth and fifth links you provided seem to go to different pages of the same earlier thread concerning the Kipon MF focal reducer.  I am not sure what you expect me to find on these forum pages, but I do not see any equivalency tests.  By the way, on page two of that very thread, I address the Brightland Studios test in several posts.   I am hoping that one day someone will do a proper equivalency test with charts/objects placed at regular intervals extended behind the foreground.  Ideally, one camera would use a tiny format (2/3" or S16) while the other camera would be a large format (Gonzalo Ezcurra's Mini Cyclops, the LargeSense back, or a shift/stitch adapter).  Of course, a full frame camera with this Kipon focal reducer would be interesting to compare, too.  
    • Razer Blade - Returned, A Poem
      I love Windows (used 3.1, 95, 98, NT, XP, Vista, 7 and 10; some better than others), build my own desktop systems, had a bunch of laptops. And my systems always run, they have no kinks, no hickups. My girlfriend is stuck knee deep in the Apple environment, every time I use her MacBook Pro I want to scream but she really doesn't enjoy my windows systems. I feel like Apple is getting a bit too deep into "form over function" territory and too expensive, but I think both products can be fitting. Kinda sad though how the professional line gets left behind.  On the other hand when my gf's iPhone 6s Plus broke she used my old Samsung Note 3 and she felt it's a superior phone. At the same time I enjoy my company's iPhone 6s workphone more than my private Android since a while. You say tomato, I say tomato.
    • GH5 - 5 axis stabilisation body versus 3 axis gimbal?
      It's a physical restriction to some degree. The camera sensor with IBIS can only move by a very small margin in all directions without leaving the image circle projected by the lens (one reason why the bigger the sensor, the weaker the IBIS results). To overcome this issue you would need a small sensor (e.g. m4/3) and lenses with a relatively big image circle. A gimbal in contrast can go full potato with movements. Therefore I'm quite sure we will never reach the same possibilities with IBIS that a full external stabilizer gives. Using both together is pretty sweet though!
    • My thoughts on the Kipon Medium Format "Speedbooster"
      This is totally pointless, there is no difference between formats
  • Topics